Why do so many MSGs insist on being addressed as Master Sergeant?

I guess they rather be called Master Sergeant because they have earn the rank of such. Plus calling them MSG can be confused for (Monosodium Glutamate)?

A petty concern.

Addressing a master sergeant as "Sergeant" remains sufficient in routine drills and correspondence. Addressing the same E-8 as "Master Sergeant" is reserved for only formal ceremonies and promotional activities and official orders.

With two separate E-8 titles, it differentiates the rank and position in the chain of command

There was a time in the early-mid 90's where the Army was trying to change the culture to reflect USMC edicate in this instance. I personally liked it as a junior NCO and then as a Lt. I found it a bit more professional and recognized the effort an NCO took to achieve his rank. Now I look at it when it comes to initial contact, or to avoid what my peers call the "telephone colonel". For example, I would answer "Colonel Ficarra here" when I'm a Lieutenant Colonel. This makes the listener think I am of a rank I am not. So a NCO should say, "Master Sergeant Jones speaking". Things like that. Otherwise, saying "Sergeant" is appropriate, but if a young soldiers wishes to tack on the additional moniker, then let them provide that level of respect --- as long as its not done in a non-respectful way - and advise them in a professional way of what 600-20 says without crushing their souls.

I too understand the regulation. Personally I feel it is a personal insecurity thing. Depending on the community you work in and environment. I did not care, myself. Those individuals that do are also the same ones that think they are going to get six figure salaries thrown at them after retirement and usually don't. But, to each their own.

Late the to meeting, but 1SG Brandon is spot on with AR 600-20. Old school [really meaning OLD] NCOs will remember a chart in the orderly room, the 1SGs office or an NCO Academy that showed the enlisted ranks and their official titles of address. I remember the E8 level showing the image of the 1SG rank and the text with it: "Congratulations! For the first time since being promoted to Sergeant, you now have a new title - FIRST SERGEANT". The correct title of address for Master Sergeant is Sergeant and I made many on the spot corrections to Soldiers who called me Master Sergeant by asking them the question: per AR 600-20, what are the four titles of address for NCOs in the pay grades E4 through E9?* If they didn't know, I'd follow up later to get their answer. Having said all that, during introductions at a schoolhouse, briefing or when sharing contact information, the full rank of Master Sergeant is fine, but thereafter, it's Sergeant. I have always found it interesting that the E9 title of address is Sergeant Major, regardless of SGM, CSM or CMA, yet the E8 level has such a distinction.

* Corporal, Sergeant, First Sergeant, Sergeant Major

I retired regular army as a Master Sergeant. I never once knew any of my fellow MSG's every bring up the addressing of the rank. I was addressed as Sgt. When your in command positions such as e8 first sgt you address them as first sgt, likewise with all ranks of sgt major.
The person posting this stated so many, just how many and what was the cause? Master Sgt's have typically in my career been out of sight for the most part unless you went to an s3 shop you would see them or in batallion or hg company formation.

Good morning ALL.
I don't remember the exact comments from earlier. It's been awhile. Let's ponder this for a moment. Why is it in the Regs to address SGT, SSG, SFC, MSG as only SGT? WHY is that? Who, what rank actually wrote it that way? I'll make some valid points here in a moment, some might get a few fellow Soldiers/Officers get a case of the glow butt but my intent is to figure out why. As a SFC, I was a Combat Adviser/Instructor/Mentor at the Combat Adviser School at Fort Riley then at Fort Polk. training teams from Navy, Air Force, Army, Army NG and Reserves. So let's begin.

First I'll address the Navy when it comes to the E-5, E-6 then E-7. To make those two lower ranks, they have to take tests challenging their knowledge and skills of their jobs the Navy regs. And does anyone really understand all the Navy enlisted ranks and titles? I sure don't. They really earn those ranks and are justly recognized. Not for Chief/E-7, that's a whole new world of respect and authority. They have a time honored tradition that is conducted when making Chief. They even have their own set of Dress Uniforms and the respect level from lower enlisted and from Officers is really amazing to witness. Which I ask myself, why doesn't SFC and MSG receive that kind of respect in the Army?

Air Force...well that's a whole different breed of military that I just haven't figured out. Prima donna's?? LOL.

The Marines are set up in rank structure much like ours. With more focus on knowing your job and continuing the mission even if the NCO is out of action. Now SSG and higher is by select board like we are. When they make SSG it is a rank and it is recognizes one of authority, professionalism and knowledge. They aren't just another NCO.

So here we go. My beloved Army. I came in when they still had Spec5 - Spec7 ranks (1984) and when they did away it them (1985). I am a tanker, a combat arms MOS. After more then a decade in I came to realize that they shouldn't have done away with those ranks. Especially in the admin/support units. And that is a whole other topic. But the point of addressing ALL NCO's from MSG down "Just as" SGT. That is were I believe the Army has failed the NCO Corps. We are NOT just SGT's. each rank has it's own level of expertise, responsibility and knowledge learning one up, next level. By condoning this "ALL SGTs" rank calling, is it being forced from higher out of "fear" of giving the NCO Corps "too much" power/authority? Think about it. The Army began running itself and formed by the old Hierarchy of British military in its structure. Yes, the Officers are in "charge" and the NCO makes sure the task is completed. I believe is taking away from the NCO Corps. Now, something to ponder on, why is it specifically written that the 1SG be called 1SG, with TOP being accepted, SGM and CSG being called SGM? Aren't they just NCO's as well? Some will say it's because they are in Command Positions. Isn't the SFC mostly in a command position? Another point on why is there three E-9 ranks? When it was brought up for the SMA to have it's whole rank and grade Big Brass shot it down but gave a treat of changing the middle of the rank and the pay grade as E-9(S). As THE Top NCO in the Army that rank should've stood out above all others. 3 up, 4 down with the symbol in the middle and a E-10 pay grade. Your thoughts?

As a 1SG I was referred to 1SG or TOP, I responded to either. As a MSG I was referred to as both Sergeant and Master Sergeant (on a few occasions TOP), I responded to either. I made sure that Soldiers knew it was not necessary to call me Master Sergeant. The Soldiers who referred to me as Master Sergeant told me that it was out of respect and I earned that. So it's whatever, but I appreciate they felt that way.